User talk:46.140.113.98

Regarding Memory safety[edit]

Please provide more information about the work "SLIMalloc: a Safer, Faster, and more Capable Heap Allocator".
Please check WP:Note to see what should be included. OToToT (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the ResearchGate paper that you censor for years, SLIMalloc is a Computer-Science breakthrough which allows to make the C programming language "memory safe" in a way that traditional "memory safe" languages cannot achieve.

Please stop censoring good Science at the benefit of technically-inferior commercial products (the only ones that, you insist, deserve to exist on the "Memory Safety" wikipedia page). 46.140.113.98 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the paper is as good as you said, why it's not published on a peer-reviewed journal or presented in a conference?

Furthermore, I'm not censoring good Science. For example, I didn't revert the paragraph talking about DieHarder.

It's just the policy of Wikipedia. OToToT (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a paper to be published in a "peer-reviewed" journal - it requires a lot of money, explaining why so many directors of scientific journals have said that "Science was dead" because money allows corporate interests to overwhelm true science with hundreds of thousands of "peer-reviewed" publications that are nothing but fraudulent.

Now, since you ask third-party "references" I will add some, like [SUSE], the first (1992) Linux distrinbutor for companies, which has agreed to include SLIMalloc to its catalog. 46.140.113.98 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there are plenty of highly rated conferences that don't require your money to publish. This is not a convincing reason not to publish a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not saying that peer-reviewed papers are all of high quality, but at least it has been reviewed. This is one of Wikipedia's minimum requirements.

Also, you have to provide a reference if you write something that is not easy to verify. You can't just claim that SUSE accepts it. You should provide the evidence. So I'm going to undo your edit until you learn how to write on Wikipedia. OToToT (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SLIMalloc Reference on SUSE:

https://www.suse.com/pcsc/viewVersionPage?versionID=23891

SLIMalloc Reference on I.T. Magazine "Programmez!":

https://programmez.com/actualites/slimalloc-un-allocateur-memoire-pour-securiser-c-et-c-34863

PLEASE, CEASE TO CENSOR SCIENCE UNDER FALLACIOUS PRETEXTS (I assume you are able to use a search engine, and these references were available at the time of the claim). 46.140.113.98 (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent to the person hiding anonymously behind the "KramerCosmonaut" Wikipedia Account:

Subject: Your Censorship of SLIMalloc on Wikipedia

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:29:15 +0200

From: P. Gauthier <xxxxx[at]xxxxx.com>

To: xxxxx[at]xxxxx.net

Dear Mr. William Woodruff,

Since you are "Engineering Director, R&D practice" at TrailOfBits.com "Responsible for directing the Ecosystem Security group",

and "Program manager and technical lead for program analysis research across DARPA programs" for Cyber-Security,

and have yourself given "course on ethical hacking" and contributed to "security tooling",

it is surprising to see you repeatedly censoring SLIMalloc on Wikipedia under the fallacious accusation of "Vandalism",

especially since all the other commercial products listed on this Wikipedia page are immensely inferior to SLIMalloc - both on capacity and performance.

We would be delighted to publish SLIMalloc as "Open Source" software - if only we were sponsored or funded - either by private investors or by the taxpayer.

In the absence of funding, we have to keep trade secrets private so that we can sell our works and make a living.

I am open to any discussion or suggestion you might have.

Sincerely,

Pierre Gauthier

I'm not "KramerCosmonaut". And you aren't being censored, either by me or anyone else; the discussion above explains WP:Note and why repeatedly citing yourself does not qualify. Yossarian flew (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SLIMalloc actually qualifies to the Wikipedia "notability" requirements and pretending the opposite of reality is the evidence of your unfair use of the Wikipedia editing powers. 46.140.113.98 (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Memory safety) for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.